search

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4 THE EFFECT OF ELECTRONIC STORYBOOKS ON STRUGGLING FOURTH- GRADERS’ READING COMPREHENSION İhsan Seyit ERTEM Gazi University, College of Education, Turkey [email protected] quantitative research examined the differences in struggling readers’ comprehension of storybooksaccording to the medium of presentation. Each student was randomly assigned with one of three conditions: (1)computer presentation of storybooks with animation; (2) computer presentation of storybooks without animation;and (3) traditional print storybooks. 77 participants were selected among fourth-grade students who were readingbelow current grade level and not meeting Sunshine State Standard as measured by Florida ComprehensiveAssessment Test (Reading Level one or Reading Level two). Comprehension was measured by using retelling.Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test research question at the .05 level of significance. The results ofstatistical analysis indicated that there was significant difference in the students' comprehension scores. Whenthe student controlled the animation functions of electronic storybooks, the animated illustrations were shown toresult in significantly higher improvement of comprehension scores, both in terms of the students' ability toretrieve information and to make inferences from the stories. The results of the research also indicated thatelectronic storybooks can improve reading comprehension and can be beneficial for struggling readers.Keywords: Literacy and technology, electronic storybooks, reading comprehension, struggling readersINTRODUCTIONBackgroundThe main objective of reading is to understand a written message (Doty, 1999). National Center for EducationalStatistics [NCES], (2005) defines reading as “an active and complex process that involves understanding writtentext, developing and interpreting meaning, and using meaning as appropriate to type of text, purpose andsituation” (p. 2). Reading comprehension is crucial to the development of children’s reading skills and thus totheir ability to obtain an education. (Durkin, 1993; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development[NICHD], 2000; Rapp, van den Broek, McMaster, Kendeou, & Espin, 2007). Without comprehension, readingwords is reduced to imitating the sounds of language, repeating text is simply memorization and oral drill (Paris,& Hamilton, 2008). There are many definitions of reading comprehension. Harris and Hodges (1995) definedcomprehension as “intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between textand reader” (p. 207). Similarly, the report of National Reading Panel [NRP] (2000) reported that readingcomprehension is a complex and cognitive process that requires an intentional and thoughtful interactionbetween the reader and the text. When readers actively relate the ideas represented in print to their ownknowledge, experiences and construct mental representations in memory, text comprehension is improved. All ofthese definitions and information concluded that reading comprehension is an active cognitive process, andinvolves interaction between reader and text to construct meaning. Also the reader’s schema, prior knowledge,and metacognitive skills play important roles in comprehension as well as characteristics of texts such ascoherency, additional aids, and organizational hints (Doty, 1999).Even though reading comprehension is very important to children’s reading skills and it is a predictor of theirfuture academic success, many students struggle with reading. Reading difficulty is not only a problem foryounger children; older students also have similar issue. National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP](2007) reported urgency of the problem. Seven hundred and thirty schools and 191,000 fourth-gradersparticipated in a reading assessment. The results of this assessment showed that about one third of fourth graderscannot read at a basic level (NCES, 2007). Furthermore, struggling readers read and learn less than their peers,resulting in the Matthew Effect, where the rich become richer and the poor get poorer (Stanovich, 1986).Therefore, reading problems often continue into adulthood; approximately 23% of U.S. adults meet only basicreading proficiency levels (NCES, as cited in Rapp et al., 2007). All of these issues emphasize the need foreffective approaches for struggling readers.Computer technology has a role to play in the remediation of children with reading problems and successes inreading instruction (NICHD, 2000) such as motivation, personal instruction, and interaction. The NRP’s meta-analysis of the extant research in computer technology revealed several findings. First, all the studies reportpositive results, suggesting that it is possible to use computer technology for reading instruction. Second, newcomputers have many multimedia presentation functions and research is needed on the use of multimediapresentations in reading instruction. Third, computer-presented text indicates that this may be a promising use ofCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 140

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4technology in reading instruction. Fourth, use of computer technology to assist reading is a relatively new field,the number of studies published in this area is small and many questions remain unanswered (NICHD, 2000).Dalton and Strangman (2006) point out that “technology and computer-mediated text have the potential tosupport students with reading problems in two ways: providing access to text and helping students learn how toread with understanding” (p. 75). Print is often thought of as a traditional technology that often serves as barrier,rather than a gateway, to learning. Even though traditional print text requires interaction between reader andtexts, traditional print texts is passive, non-interactive with non-adaptable features, static with two-dimensionalimages, and cannot response to individual readers, restricted by their linear composition, and relies heavily onthe reader's internal strategies to activate prior knowledge (Doty, 1999; Pearman, 2008). Additionally, readersfollow the structure or plot which is designed by the author. On the other hand, electronic texts typically havedifferent and new formats. These new formats are nonlinear, non-sequential, interactive, and can provide a literalinteraction between the reader and the text (Coiro, 2003; Reinking, 1992; Schmar-Dobler, 2003; Sutherland-Smith, 2002).In the last decade, given the promise of the technology for student with reading problems, the technologyresearch literature focused on computer-mediated texts. Progress in software development has dramaticallychanged the nature of software for reading. Until recently, not many software programs suitable for strugglingreaders were available (Lewis, 2000). A valuable tool in educational settings, the electronic book has beenwidely used in classroom literacy learning in the early school years (Chen, Ferdig, & Wood, 2003; Matthews,1996; Underwood, 2000). Electronic storybooks are reading software for children in illustrated storybooks thathelp children develop visual recognition. In addition, these interactive electronic storybooks offer morecomprehension hints and a better background for story than traditional printed texts (Doty 1999, Reinking 1988).Electronic storybooks are mainly designed to integrate text, graphics, animations, music and other multimediacomponents in order to bring support to the story line (Chen et al., 2003; Glasgow, 1996-1997). Electronicstorybook technology has significantly improved the potential for adding animations for readers. Children couldread the stories on their own or listen to the stories read and animate parts of illustrations.Statement of the ProblemA great number of children struggle with reading. The latest results of a NAEP report clearly show the urgencyof problem: 33 % of fourth graders were not able to achieve even a “basic” level of proficiency on the NAEPreading test (NCES, 2007). Although data from NAEP 2007 Reading Report Card shows increased scores forlow performing students in the fourth and eighth grades in 2007 as compared to previous years (fourth-graders in2007 scored two points higher than in 2005 and four points higher than in 1992), there is not a lot of good newson this report. On the average, there was little improvement in the reading skills for fourth graders across thenation since 1992. Furthermore, reading comprehension problems have also been very stubborn. Even 46% offourth-graders performing at the basic level were not able to demonstrate full comprehension (34% partial orsurface comprehension, 11% little or no comprehension, 1% omitted) (NCES, 2007). Anderson-Inman & Horney(1998) add, “Unfortunately, a large percentage of students in our country are not effective in their attempts toacquire and use information from text due to significant deficiencies in reading” (p.15).Another problem was pointed out by Robb (2000); he claimed that children’s interest in reading for pleasure andmotivation to read was being reduced. Electronic storybooks can help these unmotivated and uninterestedchildren. In addition, two-thirds of American classrooms have fewer than 50 children's books, and almost 60%of childcare centers buy less than one book per child a year (Neuman, Celano, Greco, & Shue, 2001). Fourth-graders who reported having 25 books or more at home had higher scores on the NAEP reading test thanchildren who reported they didn't have that many books (NCES, 2001). Through the use of electronicstorybooks, educators have a promising solution for very limited availability of children books.Weak decoding skills and lack of fluency are major barriers to comprehension for struggling readers (Ehri,1994). Digital texts have the capability to eliminate decoding and fluency problems through text-to-speech anddigitized speech (Dalton & Strangman, 2006). New vocabulary and concepts, complex sentence structure, lackof previous knowledge and new text structure are the other reasons for poor comprehension (Lipson & Wixson,1997). Struggling readers are also less strategic in their approach to text and they have a difficulty for monitoringunderstanding (Graham & Harrison, 1996, as cited in Dalton & Strangman, 2006; Swanson & Alexander, 1997).Many struggling readers do not view themselves as in charge of their learning and may avoid reading wheneverpossible (Dalton & Strangman, 2006, p. 80). The problem is critical, and promise of technology apparent, thereis continued research, focusing on students with reading problems (MacArthur, Feretti, Okolo, & Cavalier, 2001;Strangman & Dalton, 2005, 2006).Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 141

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4New technologies offer great opportunity and great challenge (Dalton & Strangman, 2006, p. 88). As ascaffolded learning environment, digital texts provide support to the students with diverse learning needs. Digitallearning environments, through good quality of flexibility of the medium, have the potential of scaffoldinstruction in a rich variety of ways (Bus, De Jong, & Verhallen, 2006). For example, images and animatedgraphics can be incorporated into digital texts to supplement textual definitions, supporting vocabularyunderstanding and reading comprehension (Anderson-Inman, Horney, Chen, & Lewin, 1994; Boone & Higgins,1993). Electronic texts also changed to offer strategic scaffolds such as self-monitoring questions (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998). Several studies reported encouraging findings using electronic storybooks. Forinstance, electronic storybooks improve reading motivation for children with reading difficulties (Adam & Wild,1997; Glasgow, 1996-1997), recognition of words for kindergarten children (De Jong & Bus, 2002; Lewin,2000), story comprehension (Doty, Popplewell, & Byers, 2001) and story retelling (Matthew, 1996).However, the results of the few available studies are not consistent. Some of the studies have shown thatelectronic storybooks elements may also potentially become distractions (De Jong & Bus, 2002; Matthew, 1996;Okolo & Hayes, 1996; Trushell & Maitland, 2005; Underwood & Underwood, 1998). De Jong and Bus (2002)revealed that children’s understanding of a story’s content was less supported by the electronic version than thetraditional print book format. Additionally, the illustrations, games, attractive pictorial options included in thestory motivate children but if they are not matching with the story, they can distract the children’s focus on thestory instead of supporting the narrative’s comprehension and could cause passive reading, and delay children’searly literacy development (De Jong & Bus, 2002; Labbo & Kuhn, 2000; Matthew, 1996; Shamir & Korat, 2006;Underwood & Underwood, 1998).This study is different from previous researches in several ways. Firstly, the results of the studies previouslycarried out in this area have been conflicting and are frequently hard to interpret. If there is any difference, it isnot clear whether it is coming from narration and/or animation features of storybooks. Usually there was noobvious explanation or detail about what kind of illustrations or animations were used in the study. The currentstudy is an attempt to address some of the shortcomings of previous research and this study provides anempirical data, to do specific and systematic investigation that confirms which features and types of storypresentations are more effective than others for older struggling readers.Secondly, most of the previous researches are focused on younger children and early grades. Some of theseresearches claim that electronic books are quite effective in early literacy development, reading comprehension,and language development for young children (De Jong & Bus, 2004; Grant, 2004; Higgins, 1999; Korat, 2008;Lewin, 2000; Maynard, 2005). Korat (2008) stated that young children are found to especially respond well toenhance features of electronic books. Therefore, this study is focused on fourth-grades students’ literacyachievement. Thirdly, previous researches often compare two groups, reading paper version texts and electronicversions, as a research design, validity and reliability are a major problem, and the findings are very limited andgeneral, thus, we need more specific and systematic investigations.Fourthly, the previous studies do not tell us much about how struggling students are reading and understandingthe new multimedia texts. We enter a new technological era where computers are readily accessible to children;questions arise as to the potential of this type of software on literacy development (Labbo, 1996). We know verylittle about specifically which features of electronic text work best for struggling readers, and in relation todifferent types of texts and reading comprehension. This should be a major area of investigation. Severalquestions remain unanswered; do children passively view screens that distract their attention away from meaningmaking? Do electronic storybooks support struggling readers’ comprehension? Although, findings from recentstudies suggest various elements play important roles in whether electronic books provide proficient scaffoldsfor children of various literacy ability levels, Bus et al. (2006) emphasized that “additional work is needed tolearn more about the effects of considerate animations as scaffolds to children’s story comprehension” (p. 134).More studies are needed to test which particular features of electronic storybooks, such as animation interactivityof texts, have potential to improve comprehension when the story is presented as static illustrations, andanimated illustrations (De Jong & Bus, 2002; Bus et al., 2006). For all these reasons and questions mentionedabove, this research investigated the extent to which use of medium of storybooks positively influencedstruggling readers’ comprehension.Purpose of the ResearchThe objective of this research was to compare and explore the effects of the medium of storybooks presentationson struggling readers’ reading comprehension. For this purpose of the research, each student was presented withone of three conditions: (1) computer presentation of storybooks with animation; (2) computer presentation ofCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 142

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4storybooks without animation; and (3) printed version of storybooks. These three conditions were compared withrespect to reading comprehension as measured by multiple-choice comprehension test and retelling.Research QuestionThe following research question was addressed in this research: Do fourth-grade struggling readers differ onreading comprehension as measured by retelling when they read the same storybooks presented in electronicformat with and without animation and in a traditional print format?LITERATURE REVIEWComprehension Difficulties of Struggling ReadersCooper et al. (2006) defines struggling reader as “a student who is experiencing significant difficulty learning toread” (p.11). Many struggling readers exhibit reading difficulties (Rapp et al., 2007). According to Biancarosaand Snow (2004), older struggling readers, who are between fourth and twelfth grade, mostly do not need help toread the words. However, their frequent problem is that they fail to comprehend what they read. Strugglingreaders are less conscious and have less management of their comprehension process when they are reading(Baker, 2002). Background experiences, oral language, decoding, phonemic awareness, fluency, oral reading,and writing vocabulary, comprehension, maintaining attention, and motivation are likely areas of difficultiesexhibited by struggling readers. Struggling readers are not exactly the same; for instance, some may not havedifficulty decoding words or fluency but have difficulty comprehending the text (Asselin, 2002; Yuill & Oakhill,1991).In the early grades, the primary emphases are on the alphabetical principle, phonemic awareness, decoding, andword recognition (Adams, 1990; Kingham, 2003). However, once students reach upper grade levels, the primaryemphasis shift towards reading comprehension and the anticipations of reading comprehension increase. Theexpectations are to understand more complex texts and to apply appropriate background knowledge in a varietyof contexts (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Kingham, 2003).The existing literature provides that reader characteristics, text properties, and instructional contexts are mainelements of comprehension difficulties (Rapp et al., 2007). Kingham (2003) claims that there are three basictheories offered to clarify reading comprehension difficulties. The first theory is that comprehension problemsare rooted in word recognition problems. Students with good comprehension have stronger word recognitionskills than poor comprehenders. Slow decoding causes a block in the working memory of the reader. Sincestudents with poor comprehension do not use their working memory efficiently, this gives them a lowerfunctioning capacity for comprehension purposes (Perfetti & Lesgold, 1979). The second theory claims thatreaders have difficulties in syntactic and semantic analysis of texts, and are incapable of making use of thestructural limit of language. Students with poor comprehension are presumed to pay no attention to the syntacticclues in texts and read word by word instead of processing texts in appropriate units (Cromer, 1970). The thirdtheory hypothesizes that readers have difficulty making inferences from texts, and combining the ideas withthem. Poor comprehenders are argued to have enough word recognition and syntactic skills but experiencedifficulty at inference and integration levels and fall short to monitor their comprehension (Kamhi, 1997;Kingham, 2003; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991).Research in the cognitive sciences has provided important insights into the challenges and potential sources ofreading comprehension difficulties (Gernsbacher, 1990; Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 2003). First, “oneof the most consistent findings from cognitive psychological research on reading is that the construction of acoherent representation of text in memory is central to successful comprehension” (Rapp et al., 2007, p. 292).Second, a coherent mental representation as a network that shows the meaningful connections between elementsof text and the reader's background knowledge (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Rapp et al., 2007). A lack ofbackground knowledge or failure to activate background knowledge is a potential source of difficulty forstruggling readers (Cooper et al., 2006). However, some researchers are concerned that struggling readers oftenover rely on their background knowledge causing them to move further from the intended meaning of texts(McCormick, 1992; Trabasso & Suh, 1993; Williams, 1993, as cited in Rapp et al., 2007). Struggling reader’sschema for simple stories is not developed or as efficiently utilized as that of good readers (Rahman & Bisanz,1986).The other major sources of comprehension difficulties that influence a student’s ability to comprehend arereaders' processing capacities, a lack of interest in reading, negative attitudes to reading, and motivation (Rapp etal., 2007). Most struggling readers are particularly uninterested. Struggling readers may perhaps have low self-confidence in their reading skills and they believe they cannot comprehend. The educators in literacyCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 143

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4development suggest that the struggling reader must be expanded to recognize that this individual is disengagedfrom literacy (Moje, Readance, & Moore, 2000).The content and format of texts also influence struggling readers' comprehension. The characteristics of text astudent is reading, the difficulty of the text, and type of text can also limit his or her ability to comprehend(Alexandar & Jetton, 2000 Kingham, 2003). Struggling readers often have little knowledge of text structures.Using charts, graphs, and diagrams to provide visual aids are helpful for understanding text. For example, if astudent is given a full page of text with no illustration, probably the student is overwhelmed by it. “When thestudent is given the same material spread over more pages, with less text on each page and with someillustrations; the student could read the words and comprehend the text” (Cooper et al., 2006, p. 121).Another important variable that influences how well students comprehend is their knowledge and ability to usestrategies (Paris et al., 1991). Many struggling readers fail to apply reading strategies such as self-questioning orexplanations summarization and explicit self-monitoring of comprehension. They are less strategic, andparticularly lack effective memory search strategies. Because of repeated failures, struggling readers do notrecognize the effective strategies they do use. Instead of learning alternative strategies from their failure, theyoften give up. NRP (2000) report has shown that struggling readers can increase reading comprehension skills bylearning the specific strategies such as prediction, questioning, clarifying, imagining and summarization.In summary, struggling readers have difficulty with comprehension for a variety reasons. Helping strugglingreaders overcome problems with comprehension is not an easy task, because they often have multipledifficulties. Every student’s needs and the reason for their problems must be evaluated and identified. Thefindings can be used to supply interventions that teach students how to activate their prior knowledge and how touse various strategies for constructing meaning or comprehending text (Cooper et al., 2006).Technology and Reading ComprehensionReading comprehension is influenced by new technology and literacy. Recent literature has stated a longtradition of book and print media is insufficient, students and teachers use new and varied forms of technology.The need for changes in the way we think about reading comprehension is inevitable (Coiro, 2003). RandReading Study Group (2002) pointed out “an explosion of alternative texts” and “electronic texts that incorporatehyperlinks and hypermedia introduce some complications in defining comprehension because they require skillsand abilities beyond those required for the comprehension of conventional, linear print” (p. 14). These newreading environments bring out cognitive and aesthetic challenges to comprehension (Spires & Estes, 2002) andthere is a need for theoretical description of the comprehension process (p.123).Technology’s Effects on Struggling ReadersReview of research on technology involvement with struggling readers demonstrates constantly encouragingfindings and studies have agreed the contribution of technology involvement resulted in considerable gains inreading comprehension (Denman, 2004). The NRP meta-analysis has found the 21 studies used to assesscomputer technology that showed promising results (NICHD, 2000). Computer-supported environments can helpour understanding of the struggling readers’ reading problems and \"may help compensate for inadequate readingability\" (McKenna et al., 1999, p. 113).Research findings are also optimistic about the future of multimedia applications for struggling readers. Forexample, Higgins, Boone, and Lovitt (1996) found that electronic social studies texts improved comprehensionfor students with learning disabilities. Hegarty, Carpenter, and Just (1991) reported that animation in electronictext help to illustrate unfamiliar processes for students with low mechanical ability. Many features of electronicstorybooks are well matched for phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency; vocabulary, and comprehension(Pearman & Lefever-Davis, 2006). Computer software has the exceptional capacity to bring individualizedpractice to students who need to enhance their reading fluency (Oakley, 2003). In addition to providing practicein developing reading fluency, electronic storybooks can help poor readers’ vocabulary development (Pearman& Lefever-Davis, 2006). The ability to recognize sound-symbol relationships is essential, but it is not enough forcomprehension. Students must also activate their prior knowledge and use context hints to comprehend whatthey read. There is growing indication that computer-supported effects such as animation and sound allowstudents to make these connections (Matthew, 1997). Greenlee-Moore and Smith (1996) indicate that the use ofinteractive storybooks may help improve reading comprehension for elementary students. In addition, electronicstorybooks develop the story setting through animated graphics and sound effects indicating story mood andevents and thus supporting comprehension (Lefever-Davis & Pearman, 2005). Visual aids in electronicstorybooks are helpful for understanding text and building coherent mental representation. MultimediaCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 144

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4presentation, which includes text, graphics, sound, and animated images, is also helpful motivation for astruggling reader who is particularly uninterested.Electronic TextsElectronic texts possess new characteristics that require different types of comprehension processes and adifferent set of instructional strategies. “Electronic texts introduce new supports as well as new challenges thatcan have a great impact on an individual's ability to comprehend what he or she reads” (Coiro, 2003, p. 458). Inaddition, special features of electronic texts provide powerful advantages like facilitating the process ofconstructing meaning and assisting reader’s difficulties (Reinking et al., 1998).Text features of traditional and electronic texts are completely dissimilar. For example, traditional print text ispassive, non-interactive with non-adaptable features, linear, static with two-dimensional images. Additionally,reader follows the structure or plot which is designed by author. On the other hand, electronic texts typicallyhave new formats. For instance, these new formats are nonlinear, and interactive (Coiro, 2003; Schmar-Dobler,2003; Sutherland-Smith, 2002). Images are more lifelike than in traditional print texts (Sutherland-Smith, 2002).Also electronic texts combine different functions such as animations, cartoons, and audio and visual video clips(Coiro, 2003). For the new text format, the readers need to apply and develop new literacy skills and strategies,because text structure is dissimilar between electronic and conventional texts. Sutherland-Smith (2002)electronic texts necessitate high levels of visual literacy skills, comprehension strategies, and new ways ofthinking. Electronic texts users must be skilled in interpreting, evaluating and synthesizing information and allgraphic features in new text format (Coiro, 2003; Schmar-Dobler, 2003).Reading comprehension is influenced by new technology and literacy. Recent literature has stated that a longtradition of book and print media is insufficient; students and teachers use new and varied forms of technology(Coiro, 2003). As a valuable tool in educational settings electronic books have been used in classroom literacylearning (Chen, et al., 2003; Matthews, 1996; Underwood, 2000).Pearman and Lefever-Davis (2006) claimed that comprehension skills can be developed through electronicstorybooks. However, a review of the literature has shown that a limited number of studies have investigatedcomprehension comparing the use of electronic storybooks to a traditional print text. Basically, there are threegroups of studies related to electronic story books and comprehension. The first group early works claimedcomprehension can be supported and developed by electronic storybooks. The second group research onelectronic storybooks found detrimental effects on comprehension. The third group of studies found mixedresults with increase in comprehension depending on the assessment instrument or found no evidence thatstorybooks support or distract comprehension.METHODOLOGYResearch DesignIn this research, experimental research design with one dependent variable and one independent variable wasused for testing three conditions. Dependent variable is reading comprehension as measured by the retelling. Theindependent variable is the type of medium of presentation. Three conditions: (1) electronic storybooks withanimation, (2) electronic storybooks without animation, and (3) printed version of storybooks were tested.ParticipantsThe subjects were 77 fourth-grade students from five elementary schools in the Alachua, Florida school district.Of the 89 students were eligible to be considered for this study and 77 students returned signed permission lettersfrom their parents. The subjects’ ages ranged from 9-11, with a mean of 9.96 years. Forty-eight participants werefemale, and 29 were male. The subjects were selected among fourth-grade students who were reading below atleast one or two years from current grade level and not meeting Sunshine State Standard [SSS] as measured byFlorida Comprehensive Assessment Test [FCAT] in 2007 (Reading Level one, (n=27); Reading Level two,(n=50). Florida’s retention policy requires students to reach a minimum threshold on the reading portion of theFlorida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to be promoted to the fourth grade. For instance, third-gradersmust pass the reading test to be promoted to fourth grade. In other words, by State of Florida law, third-gradestudents who scored at Level one of the FCAT were required to spend at least one extra year in third grade.Therefore, some of the subjects of the research held back and repeated the third grade. According to FloridaDepartment of Education (2004) the FCAT is a highly reliable test. On fourth-grade reading test correlationbetween the FCAT and Sunshine State Standard in year 2001, 2002, and 2003 were .90. Correlation betweenFCAT, Sunshine State Standard and Norm Referenced Test (Stanford 9) confirmed that the FCAT demonstratesCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 145

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4concurrent validity. For fourth-grade reading test in 2001, correlation was .80, and following two years .83, and.82. “The evidence of reliability and validity support the claim that FCAT is technically sound and meets orexceeds the professional standards for standardized achievement tests” (Florida Department of Education, 2004,p. 24). The subjects’ selection was based on FCAT scores. The subjects were assigned to each of the threetreatment groups by first ranking them on reading ability level using FCAT scores. Once ranked, subjects werematched on reading ability with three students per matched set. Each treatment groups consists of equal number(n=9) of reading level one students The subjects in each matched set were then randomly assigned to read theelectronic storybooks under the program's “read to me” option, or called without animation or passive mode(n=26), the second group of students were assigned to read under the program's “let me play” option, called withanimation or active mode (n=25) and the last group of students were assigned to read print based story, or calledtraditional storybook (n=26). During the research, using computers skill was not a problem. The students weregenerally very skilled at using computers. All schools that were visited had computer labs and allocated regularcomputer time to students in the computer labs. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the usingcomputer skills of these three groups. Students who have previously read and/or seen the storybooks wereeliminated from the research. It is important that the storybooks were previously unknown to subjects.Finally, characteristics of the fourth-grade struggling students participated in this study can be described asfollowing: (1) They are reading below level their current grade level and not meeting Sunshine State Standard asmeasured and documented by Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Reading Level one or Reading Leveltwo). (2) The struggling students at this study usually have the basic decoding skill to be able to read a storywhich is third or second grade level. (3) They have comprehension difficulties to understand texts in fourth-grade level. Similarly, Catts and Hogan (2002) point out that fourth-grade is particularly critical period for thereading development because some children begin to experience serious comprehension difficulties aroundfourth-grade. The reason is likely increasing demands of readings and materials in this grade.InstrumentFor this study, it was decided to use a storybook, Sheila Rae, the Brave, which was available in printed paperbook form and CD-ROM with an interactive mode (with animation) and passive mode (without animation).Designing of electronic formats of storybooks is similar in concept to printed paper book in that the readerprogresses from one page to the next in a linear way. The pages are numbered, with easy directional arrows toeither go to the next page or return to the beginning of the book. Electronic format of storybook includesanimations, a range of sounds, music and opportunities for interaction. In addition, electronic storybook allowsthe reader to click on individual words to hear them read aloud but these functions were not used in this study.Groups of words are highlighted as they are read aloud. There are options to select the language (English orSpanish) at the top of the control panel page (see Figure-1). After choosing a language, the reader can begin byselecting “let me play” to play within the story (with animation) or selecting “read to me” to read the story(without animation). Electronic storybook is completely based on printed paper format of the storybook. Thecontents in the three formats of storybooks, electronic storybooks with animation, electronic storybook withoutanimation, and printed paper based format, were similar in length of texts and with regard to illustrations (seeFigure-2). Trushell and Maitland (2005) used Sheila Rae, the Brave in their research and they stated that bothelectronic and print formats of the story contain 52 propositions, including a lengthy setting and an eventstructure of two episodes. Both electronic storybooks with and without animation formats include 12 fullyinteractive pages. Only difference between these two formats is animated storybook provides over 20 hiddenclick able interactive picture-plays, by cued animations on each page.Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 146

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4 Figure 1: The Control Panel Page of Electronic Storybooks and OptionsThe storybook was approved by experts, the teachers and fourth-grade coordinator as being suitable for the agegroup being tested. The electronic storybook, which are part of the Living book series, was selected based ontheir appropriateness for this age of reader with regard to content and reading level. Storybook was Sheila Rae,the Brave by Kevin Henkes: Developmental Assessment Level (DRA): 18-20. The Interactive storybook offereda “read to me” option, providing linear progression through the text screen by screen, and a “let me play” optionwhich, while encouraging linear progression, permitted linear regression and screen selection. During electronicstorybooks word pronunciations, definitions, narration functions were turned off so as not to provide extra helpto students. Figure 2: Sample Screen Captures of the Storybooks; Traditional Print Storybook, the Storybook without Animation, and the Storybook with AnimationThe electronic storybook was chosen for several reasons. First, the subjects are struggling readers (ReadingLevel one and Level two) at least one or two years below their current grade level. O’Connor, Bell, Harty,Larkin, Sackor, & Zigmond (2002) found that the reading-level matched texts are more beneficial than grade-level matched texts. It is also essential that struggling readers be given materials on their level. They shouldknow that at least 90-95 percent of the words in a text, that text is at the appropriate level of difficulty to readwith no assistance (Leslie & Caldwell, 2001). More difficult text is not appropriate for reading instruction. Ifgiven materials on higher level, they are unable to apply reading strategies (Kletzien, 1991). Therefore, thestorybook, which is low difficulty level for regular fourth-graders, was chosen by the researcher. The secondreason the electronic storybook and paper versions were used in previous studies. For example, Sheila Rae, theBrave by Kevin Henkes used by Trushell et al. (2003, 2005) for year 4 and year 5 primary school children inUnited Kingdom. It was an evident to the researcher was using the storybook was valid and reliable for thisresearch.Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 147

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4Measurement Tool (Retelling)In this research, retelling used to assess students’ reading comprehension performance.Comprehension is truly reflected by story retelling, and the use of retellings provides readers with an opportunityto transform the story into their own words, and also to share their individual understanding of text (Doty, 1999).One of the dependent variable of the research was comprehension as measured by oral retelling. Morrow’s 10-Point Scale was used for analysis and evaluation story retellings. Morrow’s 10-Point Scale is a reliableassessment instrument for retelling. According to Morrow’s research (1986), to verify the reliability of the scale,six evaluators independently analyzed for inclusion of structural elements (setting, theme, plot episodes,resolution) and they scored the same 12 story retellings. Morrow (1986) reported that “mean correlation amongevaluators was .93 for setting scores, .88 for theme scores, .90 for plot episodes scores, .90 for resolution scores,.86 for sequence scores, and .90 for total retelling scores” (p. 144). Additionally, the literature review has shownthat previous studies applied retelling as assessment of comprehension widely used Morrow’s 10-Point Scale.For example, Doty (1999), Doty et al. (2001), Matthew (1996, 1997), and Pearman (2003, 2008) used this scalewith retellings.Data CollectionThe research consisted of having each child read the storybook. The research was conducted by researcher withthe cooperation of elementary schools in north Florida, USA. Data collection took about 8 weeks. The first groupof students (n=25) read electronic storybooks with animation of storybooks on the computer. The second group(n=26) read electronic storybooks without animation of storybooks on the computer. The third group of students(n=26) read the same stories on print version.Prior to data collection, all students had been trained with Just Grandma and Me (by Mercer Mayer) from LivingBooks series to familiarize themselves with the comprehension measure, story retellings. Additionally, studentsin the electronic storybooks groups were given directions for using the computer. For the purposes of datacollection, the students read the following storybook, which was published in print and electronic formats: SheilaRae, the Brave by Kevin Henkes (1987).After reading, all students gave an oral retelling after reading the story. Student retellings were recorded for laterscoring by independent raters. For the retellings, students were told to tell the story to share with a friend whohad never read the story. They were reminded to tell as many details as they could remember.The retellings were scored in accordance with Morrow's (1986) 10-point scale. Students received two points, onepoint for partially correct responses, and zero points for an incorrect or missing response each of following itemsin the retelling: a) setting b) theme c) plot episodes d) resolution (Matthew, 1996). The highest total possiblescore was 10 points for this assessment. The students responses were scored by the researcher and then by anindependent rater who is native English speaker. The independent rater was trained in the general use ofMorrow's (1986) 10-Point Scale. The correlation between raters was .81. Scoring differences greater one pointwere discussed and resolved.Data AnalysisOne-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the groups on the basis of outcomemeasures at the .05 level of significance. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) used for the purposeof data entry, manipulation, and analysis. According to Balian (1994), ANOVA is the most traditionally andwidely accepted form of statistical analysis. ANOVA can test three or more group means utilizing a singlestatistical operation. ANOVA accomplishes its statistical testing by comparing variance between the groups tothe variance within each group. A significant statistical finding would indicate that group means weresignificantly different from each other. In case of a significant statistical finding, there is a need to use a Post-Hoc test (Tukey, Scheffe, Bonferroni or others) to find exactly which groups differed from which other groups(Balian, 1994). In this research, because of a significant finding from ANOVA, Bonferroni test was used to findexactly which groups differed from each other. In addition, Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance wasused to decide whether or not the average differences between the groups are due chance. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance is the nonparametric statistical test for analyzing data from two or more independentsamples of subjects (Shavelson, 1996).Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 148

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4FINDINGSAnalysis of Variance for Retelling Scores Table 1. Analysis of Variance for Retelling Scores df F Sig. N Mean Std. Deviation 6.88 2.00Retelling Between Groups 2 5.475 .006 with animation 25 5.46 2.16 4.81 2.62 Within Groups 74 without animation 26 Total 76 printed 26To assess the difference in reading comprehension scores on a multiple choice comprehension test and readingcomprehension scores on retellings for students reading electronic storybooks with animation, electronicstorybooks without animation and traditional printed storybooks, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasconducted. The findings are presented in Table 1. A one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences inreading comprehension scores on retelling (F=5.475, df=2/74, p<.05) between students reading electronicstorybooks with animation, electronic storybooks without animation and traditional print storybooks.For the reading comprehension scores on retelling, a higher level of comprehension score was reported in thereading electronic storybooks with animation condition (M=6.88, SD=2.00), followed by electronic storybookswithout animation condition (M=5.46, SD=2.16) and traditionally print storybooks condition (M=4.81, SD=2.62)(Table 1).Post-Hoc (Bonferroni) Test Results for Retelling Scores Table 2. Post-Hoc (Bonferroni) Test Results for Retelling Scores Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. (I) condition (J) condition with animation without animation 1.4185 .6390 .089 N=25, M=6.8800 SD=2.0067 printed 2.0723 .6390 .005* without animation with animation -1.4185 .6390 .089 N=26, M=5.4615 SD=2.1583 printed .6538 .6327 .914 printed with animation -2.0723 .6390 .005* N=26, M=4.8077 SD=2.6233 without animation -.6538 .6327 .914 * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.Employing the Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, significant differences were found between the electronic storybookswith animation, and the traditionally printed storybooks (p<0.05). There were no significant differences betweenthe electronic storybook with animation and the electronic storybook without animation (p=.089), and theelectronic storybook without animation, and the traditional print storybook (p=.914) (Table 2).Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Retelling Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Retelling Retelling #6 Retelling #8Chi-Square 9.079 10.362df 2 2Asymp. Sig. .011 .006 a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: ConditionDifferences in reading comprehension scores on retellings for the story “Sheila Rae, the Brave” between studentsreading the electronic storybooks with animation, the electronic storybook without animation and thetraditionally printed storybook groups were analyzed through Kruskal-Wallis tests. The findings are displayed inTable 3. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that accuracy varied significantly across Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 149

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4storybooks presentation conditions (electronic with animation or electronic without animation or printed) on theretelling item #6, H(2,N=77)=9.079, p<.05, and item #8, H(2,N=77)=10.362, p<.05 (Table 3).Table 4. Kruskal-Wallis Means Ranks for RetellingRetelling Condition N Mean Rankitem #6 with animation 25 48.22without animation 26 36.79printed 26 32.35Total 77item #8 with animation 25 47.18without animation 26 40.25printed 26 29.88Total 77The Kruskal-Wallis mean ranks revealed that the electronic storybooks with animation group (n=25) rankedhighest, the electronic storybooks without animation group (n=26) ranked second, and the traditional printstorybook group (n=26) lowest on the retelling items #6, and #8 (Table 4). Other questions did not revealstatistical differences between the electronic storybooks with animation, the storybooks without animationgroup, and the traditional print storybook group.DISCUSSIONThis research found that electronic storybooks can improve and support reading comprehension of strugglingreaders. These finding are consistent with earlier research by Doty (1999, 2001), Greenlee-Moore and Smith(1996), Grimshaw et al. (2006), Matthew (1997), McNabb (1998), Miller et al. (1994), Pearman (2003, 2008),Pearman and Lefever-Davis (2006), and Shamir et al. (2008).However, some previous research on electronic storybooks is inconsistent with the findings of this research (DeJong & Bus, 2002; Labbo & Kuhn, 2000; Trushell & Maitland, 2005; Okolo & Hayes, 1996; Scoresby, 1996;Trushell, Burrell, & Maitland, 2001; Trushell, Maitland, & Burrell, 2003; Underwood, 2000). Those claimed thatthe electronic environment has detrimental effects on comprehension. Characteristic of kids are different thesedays. In a digital age, today's kids have exposure to multiple alternatives of the stories and multimedia texts. Forexample, they may have experience with video games, hypertext, online texts, the Web, and other interactivemedia that they might not have been able to do in the past. Therefore, the influence of interactive media can be afactor that the findings of this research are inconsistent with the results of some previous studies. In addition, itshould be considered that most of those studies’ subjects were younger children and also these subjects did nothave any reading problems.In addition to improving comprehension, animation may be beneficial when struggling readers read narrativetexts. Therefore, having animation and playing options on electronic storybooks can be helpful for strugglingreaders to construct meaning from narrative reading materials. This result is supported by ChanLin (2001), andPearman & Lefever-Davis (2006); however, it is inconsistent with studies by DeJean et al. (1997), Nibley(1993), Okolo and Hayes (1996), and Scoresby (1996). These authors were concerned about the potentialdistraction of animations in reading comprehension. If animations do not support the text, they may drawstudents’ attention away from the main points of the text; and may even hinder comprehension. Scoresby (1996)found that animation in electronic books diverted from reading rather than improved it and the animation sloweddown recall of textual information.Another result of this research was that struggling readers’ comprehension is more improved when the story ispresented as animated illustrations instead of static illustrations. The retelling results showed that strugglingreaders understand theme, plot episodes and resolution in stories better with animations available in electronicstorybooks than with static visualizations available in electronic storybook and printed storybooks. The result ofthe research found that the advantages of animation in improving story comprehension and in supportingstruggling readers’ ability to make inferences about story events.This research does not include any quantitative data whether electronic storybooks increase student motivation,and enjoyment, however, the interview results show that the students usually were enthusiastic about readingelectronic storybooks.Electronic storybooks can help struggling readers to build or activate more complete schemas of stories.According to the present research struggling readers reached more complex levels of story understanding withCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 150

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4multimedia storybooks. Additionally, it is clear that the electronic books offer interactive features that may serveas electronic scaffolds for struggling readers (Bus, De Jong & Verhallen, 2006).A possible explanation of higher comprehension scores for electronic storybooks with animation group lies inthe interactivity that electronic storybooks allow. The rich visual support and animation in the electronicstorybooks used in this research may be a reason that influenced the amount of comprehension. Sutherland-Smith (2002) stated that images in electronic texts are more lifelike than in traditional print texts. It has beenshown that animation on the electronic storybooks, the design quality of on-screen elements can bring in greaterinterest from the reader, a more effective activation background knowledge, and deeper processing ofinformation (Alvarez, 2006).Comprehension can be supported by interaction and self-direction which both are available in electronicstorybooks with animation. In other words, the interactive features of storybooks can contribute to the readers’comprehension. Dalton and Strangman (2006) stated that the novelty effect and student opportunities for controland choice might be potential sources of students’ positive responses to electronic storybooks.CD-ROM software technologies present new promise for introducing children to reading through computers. Forinstance, in the Netherlands and other parts of the world, young children can independently practice electronicversions of those books on a computer screen (Bus, De Jong, & Verhallen, 2006). Teachers and families can useelectronic storybooks, as less dependent on adult scaffolding, for supporting struggling readers.CONCLUSIONThis research investigated the effects of electronic storybooks on reading comprehension of fourth-gradestruggling readers. Many struggling readers exhibit reading difficulties for a variety reasons (Rapp et al., 2007).According to Biancarosa and Snow (2004) a common problem of older struggling readers, who are betweenfourth and twelfth grade, is that they fail to comprehend what they read. Coiro (2003) says that print media isinsufficient. As a valuable tool in educational settings electronic storybooks and the features of electronicstorybooks may help the reader in building context and activate student’s background knowledge (Doty, 1999;Pearman, 2008).The results of the study showed that retelling scores were higher for struggling readers reading the electronicstorybooks with animation than struggling readers reading the electronic storybooks without animation (staticillustration) and struggling readers reading printed storybooks (see Table 1). In other words, animations wereshown to positively affect the comprehension of the fourth-grade struggling readers. Struggling readers who readthe storybook with animations were being able to remember more story details and information when the storywas finished. Another important result of the study was that the retellings of student group who read animatedversion of story were longer, and more creative related or unrelated the stories. In addition, the electronicstorybooks with animation group spent significantly longer time overall in reading when we compare to the othergroups. Spending more time in reading might be a clue of engaged reading, reading pleasure, and readingattention. Engagement is clearly an important literacy outcome o for reading in digital environments (Dalton &Strangman, 2006).There could be a variety of causes for these higher retelling and comprehension test scores of struggling readersreading the electronic storybooks with animation. The most obvious cause is animations that give contextualsupport and increase readers’ understanding of a text (Trushell, Maitland, & Burrell, 2003). Pearman andLefever-Davis (2006) stated that “when book characters visually react to an event via animations, it is easier forreaders to infer word meanings” (p. 306). Another cause can be the connections between multimedia and time(the dual coding) on task, student interest and engagement with the texts, animation and student motivation resultin superior memory of story. Multimedia features can support processing, memory, or motivation, which maycause better comprehension (Zucker, Moody, & McKenna, 2009). The group of struggling fourth-grade studentsreading electronic storybooks with animation spent a longer amount of time reading storybooks. Interactivestorybooks caused this result because their formats are more engaging, interesting, and thus, more motivating toreaders (Pearman & Lefever-Davis, 2006).Zucker, Moody, and McKenna (2009) found similar results in their research about e-books. They say that“quality of visual design features, particularly embedded hotspots and animations, can influence the impact of e-books on learning outcomes” (p.53). However, some e-books appear to do too many these features. Too manyhotspots or incongruent animations can encourage passive viewing or slow down comprehension by creatingvisual distractions that lure the child away from the text ((Labbo & Kuhn, 2000; Trushell, Burrell, & Maitland,2001). In addition, there are some concerns about electronic text that can distract the attention of strugglingCopyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 151

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4readers, and they can also cause cognitive overload or damage comprehension of these readers (Duke et al.,2006). However, this research found that electronic storybooks might be beneficial in helping struggling readersbetter understand the narratives and animation feature of electronic storybooks which has the potential toimprove struggling reader comprehension.REFERENCESAdam, N., & Wild, M. (1997). Applying CD-ROM interactive storybooks to learning to read. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(2), 119–132.Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Alexander, P.A., & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading, Volume III (pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Alvarez, O.H., (2006). Developing digital literacies: Educational initiatives and research in Colombia. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, Volume II (pp. 29-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15-43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Anderson-Inman, L., Horney, M. A., Chen, D. T., & Lewin, L. (1994). Hypertext literacy: Observations from the electro text project. Language Arts, 7(4), 279-287.Asselin, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Directions from research. Teacher Librarian, 29(4), 55-57.Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction. In Block, C.C., & M. Pressley (Eds.). Comprehension instruction: Research-Based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: The Guilford Press.Balian, E. S. (1994). The graduate research guidebook: A practical approach to doctoral/masters research (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004.) Reading next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (1993). Hypermedia basal readers: Three years of school-based research. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(3), 86-106.Bus, A.G., De Jong, M. T., & Verhallen, M. (2006). CD-ROM talking books: A way to enhance early literacy? In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, Volume II (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Catts, H. W., & Hogan, T. P. (2002, June). The fourth grade slump: Late emerging poor readers. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Chicago, IL.ChanLin, L. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 17(4), 409-419.Chen, M., Ferdig, R., & Wood, A. (2003). Understanding technology-enhanced storybooks and their roles in teaching and learning: An investigation of electronic storybooks in education. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 3(1). Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume3/chenferdigwood.pdfCoiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458-464.Cooper, J. D., Chard, D., & Kiger, N. D. (2006). The struggling reader: Interventions that work. New York: Scholastic.Cromer, W. (1970). The difference model: A new explanation for some reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 471-483.Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, Volume II (pp. 75-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Dejean, J., Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1997). CD-ROM talking books: What do they promise? Education and Information Technologies 2(2), 121-130.De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2002). Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 145-155.De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2004). The efficacy of electronic books in fostering kindergarten children's emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 378-393.Delany, P., & Landow, G.P. (Eds.). (1991). Hypermedia and literary studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 152

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4Denman, J.S. (2004). Integrating technology into the reading curriculum: Acquisition, implementation, and evaluation of a reading program with a technology component (READ 180) for struggling readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.Doty, D.E. (1999). CD-ROM storybooks and reading comprehension of young readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie.Doty, D.E., Popplewell, S. R., & Byers, G. O. (2001). Interactive CD-ROM storybooks and young readers' reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 374-384.Duke, N. K., Schmar-Dobler, E., & Zhang, S. (2006). Comprehension and technology. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology, Volume II (pp. 317-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Ehri, L.C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell and H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323-358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Florida Department of Education. (2004). Assessment and Accountability Briefing Book. Retrieved on April 27, 2008 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/pdf/fcataabb.pdfFlorida Department of Education. (2005). Reading First. Retrieved on April 27, 2008 from http://www.justreadflorida.com/reading_first.asp.Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990) Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Glasgow, J. (1996-1997). It's my turn! Part II: Motivating young readers using CD-ROM storybooks. Learning and Leading with Technology, 24, 18-22.Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (2003) Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Grant, J. M. A. (2004). Are electronic books effective in teaching young children reading and comprehension? International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 303.Greenlee-Moore, M., & Smith, L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children's reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 17(1), 43–64.Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2006). Electronic books: Children's reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583-599.Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Person (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. 641- 668). New York: Longman.Henkes, K. (1987). Sheila Rae, the brave. New York: Greenwillow Books.Henkes, K. (1996). Sheila Rae, the brave [CD-ROM]. Novato, CA: Living Books.Higgins, K., Boone R., & Lovitt, T.C. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 402-412.Higgins, N. (1999). Using electronic books to promote vocabulary development. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 425-430.Kamhi, A. G. (1997). Three perspectives on comprehension: Implications for assessing and teaching comprehension problems. Topics in Language Disorders, 17(3), 62-72.Kingham, P., H. (2003). Developmental Approaches to Reading Comprehension in Children with Reading Difficulties. Unpublished master’s thesis. Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved on January 23, 2009, from http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt- WCU20030904.135502/unrestricted/03chapter2.pdfKintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85, 363-394.Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 67-86.Korat, O. (2008). The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children's emergent literacy in low versus middle SES groups. Computers & Education, 50(1), 110-124.Labbo, L.D. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 356–385. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.4.2.Labbo, L.D., & Kuhn, M.R. (2000). Weaving chains of affect and cognition: A young child's understanding of CD-ROM talking books. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 187-210.Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 153

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4Labbo, L. D., Leu Jr., D. J., Kinzer, C., Teale, W. H., Cammack, D., Kara-Souteriou, J., et al. (2003). Teacher wisdom stories: Cautions and recommendations for using computer-related technology for literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 57(3), 300-304.Lefever-Davis, S., & Pearman, C. (2005). Early readers and electronic texts: CD-ROM storybook features that influence reading behaviors. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 446-454.Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-3. New York: Longman.Lewin, C. (2000) Exploring the effects of talking book software in UK classrooms. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 149-157.Lewis, R.B. (2000). Project LITT (literacy instruction through technology): Enhancing the reading skills of students with learning disabilities through hypermedia-based children’s literature. Final report. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University, Department of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438648).Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1997). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing disability. New York: Addison-Wesley.Mac Arthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.Matthew, K. (1996). The impact of CD-ROM storybooks on children's reading comprehension and reading attitude. Journal of Education Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3-4), 379-394.Matthew, K. (1997). A comparison of influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(3), 263-276.Mayer, M. (1983). Just grandma and me. New York: Golden Press.Mayer, M. (1993). Just grandma and me [CD-ROM]. Novato, CA: Living Books.Maynard, S. (2005). Can electronic textbooks help children to learn? The Electronic Library, 23(1), 103.McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 111-126.McNabb, M.L. (1998). Using electronic books to enhance reading comprehension of struggling readers. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 41-55). Scottsdale, AZ.Miller, L., Blackstock, J., & Miller, R. (1994). An exploratory study into the use of CD-ROM storybooks. Computers in Education, 22, 187-204.Moje, E.B., Young, J.P., Readence, J.E., & Moore, D.W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43(5), 400-410.Morrow, L.M. (1986). Effects of structural guidance in story retelling on children's dictation of original stories. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(2), 135-152.National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The Condition of Education 2001. NCES 2001–072. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). 2009 NAEP reading framework. Washington DC: Author.National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007496.pdfNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Neuman, S. B., Celano, D. C., Greco, A. N., & Shue, P. (2001). Access for all: Closing the book gap for children in early education. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Nibley, M. (1993). Words and pictures: Scripting and producing the multimedia educational program. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 6(2), 10-13.Oakley, G. (2003). Improving oral reading fluency (and comprehension) through the creation of talking books. Reading Online, 6(7). Retrieved on July 25, 2008, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=oakley/index.htmlO’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S. M., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 474-485.Okolo, C. & Hayes, R. (1996, April). The impact on animation in CD-ROM books on students' reading behaviors and comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395434. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from ERIC database.Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 154

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2010, volume 9 Issue 4Paris, S.G., & Hamilton, E.E. (2008). The development of children's reading comprehension. In Israel, S. E., & Duffy, G., G. (Eds.). Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 32-53). Manwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II (pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.Pearman, C. (2003). Effects of electronic texts on the independent reading comprehension of second grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.Pearman, C.J., & Lefever-Davis, S. (2006). Supporting the essential elements with CD-ROM storybooks. Reading Horizons, 46(4), 301-313.Pearman, C.J. (2008). Independent Reading of CD-ROM Storybooks: Measuring Comprehension with Oral Retellings. The Reading Teacher, 61, 594.Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1979). Coding and comprehension in skilled reading and implications for reading instruction. In L. B. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Rahman, T., & Bisanz, G. L. (1986). Reading ability and use of a story schema in recalling and reconstructing information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 323-333.RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K., L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C., A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312.Reinking, D. (1992). Differences between electronic and printed texts: An agenda for research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(1), 11-24.Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. xi-xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Reinking, D., McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (Eds.) (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology transformations in a post-typographic world. Manwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in the middle school. New York: Scholastic.Shamir, A & Korat, O. (2006). How to select CD-ROM storybooks for young children: The teacher's role. The Reading Teacher, 59(6) 532-543.Shamir, A., Korat, O., & Barbi, N. (2008). The effects of CD-ROM storybook reading on low SES kindergarteners’ emergent literacy as a function of activity context: Paired peer tutoring versus individual use of the e-storybook. Computers & Education, 51, 354-367.Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the internet: The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Literacy, 47(1), 80-85.Scoresby, K. J. (1996). The effects of electronic storybook animations on third graders' story recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University.Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen. Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662-669.Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J.E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 128-158.Trushell, J., Burrell, C., & Maitland, A. (2001). Year 5 pupils reading an interactive storybooks on CD ROM: Losing the plot? British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 389-401.Trushell, J., & Maitland, A. (2005). Primary pupils’ recall of interactive storybooks on CD-ROM: inconsiderate interactive features and forgetting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 57-66.Trushell, J, Maitland, A., & Burrell, C. (2003). Pupils’ recall of an interactive storybook on CD-ROM. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 80-89. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00008.Underwood, G. & Underwood, J. (1998). Children’ s interactions and learning outcomes with interactive talking books. Computers and Education, 30, 95-102.Underwood, J. (2000). A comparison of two types of computer support for reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2), 136-148.Yuill, N., Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. K., & McKenna, M. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books on pre- kindergarten-to-grade 5 students’ literacy and language outcomes: A research synthesis. J. Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47-87Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 155